Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva can orders freeze assets owned directly or indirectly by the defendants. Oftentimes a defendant subject to a freezing order has other creditors seeking repayment. Can a creditor enforce its claim against the frozen assets? Yes, but the creditor must come to the court with clean hands and should not make loans to the defendant if it has notice of the order.

On December 5, 2022, in In re Global Cord Blood Corp., 2022 WL 17478530 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022) (“Global Cord”), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) denied recognition of a proceeding pending in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Cayman Proceeding” and the court, the “Cayman Court”) because it was more like a corporate governance and fraud remediation effort than a collective proceeding for the purpose of dealing with reorganization or liquidation, as Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code requires.

The thing that strikes you the most about Paul, Weiss is the depth of the practice. They just have a large number of senior partners, all of whom are of an outstanding quality.

- Chambers USA, Band 1 for Bankruptcy/Restructuring (Nationwide and NYC) and "Bankruptcy Law Firm of the Year" in 2019

A preferential transaction occurs where an insolvent person or debtor makes a transfer of property or a payment that has the effect of favouring one creditor over another. Creditors and bankruptcy trustees can use federal or provincial legislation to attack preferential transactions. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc v Scott, 2022 ONCA 509, upheld the finding that certain transactions were an unlawful preference under section 95(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985 c B-3 (“BIA”).

On August 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a confirmation order appeal as equitably moot.[1] The doctrine of equitable mootness can require dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision – typically, an order confirming a chapter 11 plan – on equitable grounds when third parties have engaged in significant irreversible transactions

On October 5, 2021, the Tenth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in concluding statutory fee increases that applied only to debtors filing for bankruptcy in judicial districts administered by the United States Trustee Program (the “US Trustee” or the “UST Program”) violated the U.S.

As a matter of practice, chapter 11 plans and confirmation orders routinely discharge administrative expense claims, including those that arise after confirmation of a plan but before its effective date. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) recently affirmed the bankruptcy court’s statutory authority to do so in Ellis v. Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC, 2021 WL 3852612 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).

On July 26, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) affirmed the Delaware bankruptcy court’s order (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the chapter 11 liquidation plan (the “Plan”) of Exide Holdings, Inc.

On May 24, 2021, the U.S.

On June 28, 2021, in the chapter 11 cases of Paragon Offshore plc and certain of its affiliates (“Paragon” or the “Debtors”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the U.S. Trustee’s motion[1] to compel payment of $250,000 in statutory fees assessed against litigation trust distributions.